Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish write/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds substantive transition semantics: new requests pick up the revision immediately while in-flight requests stay pinned to their original revision. That is exactly the kind of post-condition an agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not mention permissions or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the transition behavior follows as qualification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, triggers, and request-handling semantics, with annotations carrying the safety profile. Only prerequisites and error behavior are absent, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents both parameters including a pointer to list_pipeline_revisions for valid revision numbers. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a precise verb+resource ('Make an existing pipeline revision the active one') and immediately qualifies the two scenarios that trigger it — rollback or activating a draft. It is unambiguous against list_pipeline_revisions and update_pipeline, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling activation tools like activate_webhook_endpoint_revision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the two conditions under which the tool is the right choice ('a rollback, or activating a draft'), which is real routing guidance. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g. whether the revision must be in draft, what happens if it is already active).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.